The greatest match ever?

AT 1.30am yesterday, an estimated 1.86 million Australians were still witnessing an epic struggle between two men on either side of a net. The eventual victor Novak Djokovic and his masochistic opponent Rafael Nadal later said they enjoyed the pain they felt in their six-hour final, which was instantly conferred with a special place in tennis history.

Comparisons were drawn with the 2008 Wimbledon final between Nadal and Roger Federer. Nadal reckoned Wimbledon ''a little bit more special'', given that he'd won that one, while acknowledging that he had participated in an extraordinary match. ''Physically, was the toughest match I ever played,'' said the iron Spaniard.

Djokovic ranked this as his greatest moment, slightly ahead of his Wimbledon triumph over Nadal last year. ''This one I think comes out on the top because just the fact that we played almost six hours is incredible, incredible.''

What we had seen was certainly epic and unique. Two men had pushed themselves beyond reasonable limits, in a final that had taken once-genteel tennis into the realm of extreme sport, like mountain climbing without oxygen.

Advertisement

But an epic match isn't always a classic in terms of the skills exhibited. Long matches aren't necessarily great ones. The 2012 men's final will be remembered for its ludicrous length and for the courage of the combatants. It was not a classic, though, in the manner of Nadal v Federer at Wimbledon in 2008, or the final at the same staid venue between Bjorn Borg and John McEnroe in 1980.

The viewers and the hyperbolic Channel Seven commentary may say otherwise, but this match was of far greater duration than quality. Indeed, one could mount a case that it was too long, that Djokovic and Nadal were actually too well matched to produce a contest comparable to Federer v Nadal, McEnroe v Borg or Pete Sampras v Andre Agassi.

The first set of this ordeal lasted 80 minutes, a smidgen less than the women's final. The tennis was tight and tense, but there was relatively little adventure as both players traded blows from the back of the court. And when they did chance their arm, the other guy often retrieved the ball.

Unlike the fire-and-ice pairing of net-rushing, temperamental McEnroe and phlegmatic, baseline Borg, or the more blindingly brilliant and deft Federer v Nadal, this combination pitted players with similar weapons, including an amazing ability to defend. Over six hours, there was only one point won serving and volleying.

The match lacked a diversity of shot-making, and it wasn't an edge-of-the-seat rollercoaster until relatively late. In the third and fourth sets, Djokovic was cruising; it was only late in the fourth set, as the Serb sought to close it out and Nadal surged, that the compelling drama began.

If a basketball match meanders, but is won with a spectacular shot on the buzzer, do we rate it only on what happened last?

Tennis Australia will point to the ratings and to the gushing reviews that have ensued. But, as in literature, a classic is defined neither by the number of pages, nor the ending.